I'd like to clarify.
The background was, of course, that the two items went forward—Mr. Nadeau's and Ms. Bell's. The criteria say that a matter must have been voted on for a criterion 3 to apply. At the time they were put on the order of precedence—it was at the beginning of the session—neither had been voted on. Neither one could be ruled out of order on the criteria.
The subcommittee saw the two items and said they were identical, but they had no grounds on which to rule either one out of order. The result was that both went forward as votable. As Madam Redman says, either one could have come to a vote first, but whichever one came to a vote first, the second one would have been ruled out of order. As Mr. Lee rose on a point of order, the Speaker took it upon himself to allow an opportunity for the committee to work out a solution, but that would not necessarily be the same solution in all cases.
In another case, the second person might well have had one or two hours of debate, their item would be ruled out of order, and that person would be left with no remedy. That was why the Speaker suggested the procedure and House affairs committee and the Subcommittee on Private Members' business try to solve the situation so he didn't have to become involved. That was what led to this particular solution.